ABSTRACT
Percutaneous osseointegrated (OI) devices offer an advanced alternative to socket prosthetic suspension systems for amputees but can face clinical limitations due to complications at the skin‐implant interface. Titanium (Ti) and its alloys, though mechanically suitable and promoting osseointegration, are unable to support epidermal cell adhesion, leading to chronic wounds, sinus tract formation, and infections. To improve epidermal tissue integration, this study explored the use of fluorapatite (FA)—a natural tooth mineral known to allow epithelial adhesion through hemidesmosomes. It was hypothesized that FA‐coated Ti surfaces would enhance epidermal cell attachment, promote wound healing, and prevent epithelial downgrowth. To test this idea, FA‐coated Ti devices were implanted into the transected fused 3–4 metacarpals of five sheep and evaluated at 12 weeks post‐implantation. The results revealed that FA‐coatings significantly improved healing outcomes and limited epithelial migration along the implant surface. These findings support FA as a promising strategy for promoting a biological seal around percutaneous implants.
Keywords: bioactive biomaterial, fluorapatite coating, percutaneous osseointegrated devices, wound healing
1. Introduction
Percutaneous osseointegrated (OI) prosthetic devices have proved to be a successful alternative to traditional socket‐suspended prostheses. This approach involves inserting an endoprosthesis into the medullary canal of the transected bone, with an extension which then exits the skin barrier and provides a platform for affixing an exoprosthesis [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. Titanium OI devices have demonstrated significant utility in various medical applications [6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13], offering superior structural support by providing a stable OI skeletal docking platform for attaching artificial limbs. They have fulfilled their promise of revolutionizing amputee rehabilitation by obviating the historical challenges of socket‐suspended prosthetic ambulation [3, 14, 15, 16]. The direct skeletal attachment allows patients to perceive ground strikes and terrain changes when walking, allowing them to perceive the prostheses as part of their own body; this has been termed osseoperception. [17, 18] The complications inherent in socket‐suspension systems, such as pressure sores, discomfort during sitting, tissue necrosis, and inadequate load transfer to the residual bone are no longer an issue [19]. Limited prosthetic wear times, often resulting in the abandonment of the artificial limb and leaving amputees wheelchair‐bound are eliminated [5, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25]. While skeletally attached artificial limbs are functionally superior, the skin‐to‐implant interface at the device exit site remains a significant weak link [26, 27, 28]. Since the implant disrupts the protective skin barrier at the stoma, healing responses are complex, prolonged and persistent [29]. Suboptimal healing cascades at the skin/implant interface can lead to the perpetual presence of inflammation, accompanied by the formation of granulation tissue (GT).
Because of bone's well‐known ability to integrate with titanium‐based implants (i.e., osseointegration), medical‐grade titanium alloys are the preferred materials for fabricating percutaneous OI prosthetic devices. Although foreign body responses (FBRs) in the exiting soft‐tissue sites are expected to occur following implantation, they have been historically less well studied in this device type [30, 31]. In short, the elicited FBR is a healing process that attempts to eliminate or isolate the foreign body (i.e., implant) from the soft tissue through inflammation (phagocytosis) and/or biological encapsulation [29]. Simultaneously, at the distal implant exit site (stoma), the presence of a skin‐protruding device and the inability of epithelial cells to integrate with the device's surface hinder the completion of the re‐epithelialization phase of the wound healing cascade. The failure of cutaneous integration directs epithelial cells to migrate or grow down along the implant's surface during the final stage of wound healing, resulting in a phenomenon known as “marsupialization” or epidermal downgrowth [29]. As shown in Figure 1, this complex healing process leads to distal sinus tract formation. At the same time, FBR directs the formation of fibrous capsules proximally [32, 33, 34, 35]. The sinus tract that forms around the distal part of the implants is always colonized by bacteria but also can serve as a breeding ground for opportunistic pathogens as well as commensal microbes [29]. When a potential pathogen reaches a critical number, it can lead to a clinically significant infection. These are reported to range from 0% to 56% [36, 37]. Thus, the need for further research studies to find a way to establish a stable biological seal at the stoma and provide a long‐term solution for patients wanting to undergo this treatment.
Figure 1.

A schematic illustration of epithelial downgrowth along a percutaneous implant surface. The epidermal cells migrate downward along the implant surface, encasing it circumferentially without establishing direct integration, i.e., biological attachment.
In an attempt to achieve stable integration of the epidermis with the implant surface, Pendergrass et al. [38] investigated the use of hydroxyapatite (HA)—the primary inorganic component found in antlers—as a coating on titanium implants [38, 39, 40]. Prior to this, Jensen and his colleagues also explored HA as a percutaneous coating material in translational animal models [41, 42, 43]. However, data from both groups demonstrated the limited utility of HA at longer‐term follow‐up, and HA‐coated titanium implants failed to improve cutaneous integration in clinical use [41, 42, 43, 44]. There are three possible reasons for these results. First, antlers protrude through the deer's scalp only during the rutting season, after the velvet is shed [40], implying that the skin seal is required only for short‐term protection. Second, HA is naturally resorbed and reused within the body by macrophages and osteoclasts [45, 46, 47, 48], which may lead to the rapid degradation of the HA coating. Third, HA coating methods and the resulting crystallinity significantly influence its resorption rate [49, 50, 51]. With time, these coatings could be resorbed, exposing the base Ti surface, resulting in loss of stable seal. Despite the apparent failure of HA coatings to achieve persisting cutaneous integration, HA‐coated bone‐anchored hearing aids (BAHA) appear to work [52]. Clinical studies in these cases suggest that HA‐coated abutments produce a thick layer of skin, just like the junctional epidermis [52]. An additional report of HA‐coated titanium implants in the craniofacial skeleton, showed that this approach can work in the head and neck region. Although limited, these data suggest that the use of HA coatings on titanium implants may warrant further investigation [53].
Previous studies also may have overlooked a critical apatite‐based percutaneous ectodermal organ: the tooth. It is well established that the junctional epithelium attaches to tooth enamel via specialized cell junctions, hemidesmosomes (HDs), ensuring the stability of the junctional gingival seal with the tooth surface for its lifetime [54, 55]. It has been suggested that enamel surfaces induce a unique cellular response in gingival mucosal cells of the junctional epithelium, leading to HD expression [56, 57, 58]. Such evidence suggests that certain bioactive apatites could induce appropriate cellular responses, allowing epithelial cells to adhere to non‐living surfaces. A crucial factor is that tooth enamel is composed mainly of fluoridated apatite, known as fluorohydroxyapatite (FHA) or fluorapatite (FA), which shows greater crystallinity when compared to HA [59, 60, 61]. Most importantly, its ability to resist bioresorption over the lifetime of the animal suggests that it has significantly lower resorption rates when compared to HA. Based on these facts, our group has investigated FA as an interface material for percutaneous device applications, with the rationale of mimicking the composition and crystallinity of the enamel surface and creating a “dental‐like” structure. Our previous work demonstrated that FA, when sintered at high temperatures (1050°C–1250°C), increased the activity of fibroblasts and keratinocytes in vitro while maintaining the high crystallinity in the FA structure [62]. Most strikingly, small animal (rat) feasibility data showed a reduction in GT and epidermal downgrowth at the skin‐device interface 12 weeks post‐implantation [63]. Histomorphometry and molecular analyses revealed that GT surrounding FA‐coated implants closely resembled healthy dermal tissue when compared to uncoated titanium implants, suggesting the ability of FA to promote a normal healing process at the implant exit site [63].
Many translational animal models—rats, guinea pigs, rabbits, and pigs—have been used to study the effects of healing around biomimetically coated percutaneous titanium implants [63, 64, 65, 66]. However, none of these in vivo models involved weight‐bearing. During daily ambulation, the periprosthetic skin also endures constant tensional, shear, and torsional forces, creating a more mechanically challenging interface environment than the non‐weight‐bearing interfaces tested in the previously mentioned models. Since FA coating has successfully demonstrated its ability to reduce downgrowth and improve healing cascades in the rat model [63], the current study aimed to confirm this finding by using our previously reported sheep amputation and load‐bearing implantation model [27, 36, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71]. We hypothesized that coating percutaneous titanium OI devices with an FA coating would reduce epidermal downgrowth and facilitate GT healing at the skin‐device interface, thereby improving stomal wound healing and, by doing so, provide a biologically stable stoma.
2. Methods
2.1. Material and Chemicals
Unless otherwise specified, all reagent‐grade chemicals were purchased from Sigma Aldrich (St. Louis, MO).
2.2. Implant Fabrication and Coating
A previously validated intramedullary implant, specifically designed to fit the fused sheep metacarpal III/IV bone, was utilized in this study [27, 36, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71]. Detailed specifications of the implants have been published elsewhere [27, 68]. In short, the original engineering schematics were used to manufacture the percutaneous OI implants, which comprise both endo‐ and exo‐prosthetic components (Figure 2). These components were fabricated using medical‐grade titanium alloy (Ti6Al4V) and grit‐blasted at the proximal endo‐prosthetic end (DJO, Austin, TX). The distal end was coated with a porous titanium coating (Thortex, Portland, OR) to facilitate bone ingrowth and promote skin interdigitation for preventing shear forces at the interface.
Figure 2.

A photograph showing a fabricated percutaneous osseointegrated implant for the sheep fused 3–4 metacarpal bone attached to the exo‐prosthesis (foot). The entire endo‐prosthetic and percutaneous portions of the implant were coated with FA.
To evaluate the efficacy of FA as a coating, the entire implant was micro‐blasted with FA powder, which was pre‐sintered at 1150°C and sieved to achieve particle sizes in the range of 25 < d < 75 µm. For depositing a thin coating, a microblaster (AccuFlo Microblaster; Comco Inc., Burbank, CA) was used with an attached 0.046” nozzle after optimizing the nozzle size for uniform FA deposition. Moreover, the nozzle was positioned 2 cm from the implant surface. Each implant was uniformly coated using a 10‐min spray with a constant nitrogen gas flow of 65 PSI. The coated surfaces were subsequently characterized using scanning electron microscopy (SEM; FEI Quanta 600F, Hillsboro, OR) coupled with energy‐dispersive spectroscopy (EDS; EDAX, Pleasanton, CA) to confirm the coating uniformity, and x‐ray photon spectroscopy (XPS; Kratos Axis Ultra DLD, San Diego, CA) was used to confirm the elemental composition of the coated surfaces.
2.3. Animal Study Design
Five skeletally mature Rambouillet sheep (n = 5, > 18 months old) underwent amputation followed by implantation of an OI FA‐coated implant, as described below, using an institutionally approved IACUC protocol (University of Utah 1721). A historically successful surgical protocol was replicated to minimize the numbers of animals used and to serve as the control group (n = 5, uncoated Ti) [31]. Following surgery, animals were monitored for 12 weeks. At necropsy, the implants and surrounding tissues were collected for analysis of epithelial downgrowth and GT analyses and compared to historical controls. Healing at the implant exit site was assessed using standard histology and immunohistochemistry (IHC) techniques. To limit surgical variability, all procedures were performed by a single orthopedic surgeon.
2.4. Surgical Procedure
The single‐stage surgical procedure followed a previously published surgical protocol [27, 36, 71]. Briefly, animals were fasted overnight, and transdermal fentanyl patches (1–2 µg/kg/h) were applied 24 h before surgery and maintained for a further 72 h after surgery. Water was withheld on the morning of the procedure. General anesthesia was induced with propofol (4–10 mg/kg/IV) and maintained with isoflurane (0.5%–5% in oxygen). Mirroring previous studies, the right forelimb was shaved, cleansed with 3‐time alternating scrubs of Betadine and 70% alcohol, and covered with sterile drapes for surgery. A temporary tourniquet was placed proximal to the carpal‐metacarpal joint. Following exposure, the flexor and extensor tendons were tenodesed in a neutral position using 0 FiberWire suture (Arthrex, Naples, FL), and the amputation was then performed by transecting the fused metacarpal 3–4 bone at the metaphyseal flare. Post amputation, the medullary canal was reamed, using frequent saline flushes to avoid heat‐induced bone necrosis. An appropriately‐sized FA‐coated implant from a selection of five sizes was press‐fitted into the bone using a hand mallet. The implant's Morse‐tapered post was routed through a stab incision, preserving the anterior blood supply and venous drainage of the skin flap. The skin incision was closed using 3‐0 Vicryl sutures in layers, leaving the corners open for drainage. An exo‐prosthetic hoof was attached to the implant and gently impacted to secure it. Post‐surgical radiographs were taken to confirm proper alignment (Figure 3). The wound was dressed with Telfa pads and vet wrap, with dressing changes weekly for the first week and biweekly thereafter.
Figure 3.

A representative post‐implantation radiograph showing the implant positioned within the sheep's fused 3‐4 right metacarpal bone.
2.5. Postoperative Treatment and Monitoring
Postoperative treatment included Excede (6.6 mg/kg) preoperatively and daily for 5–7 days to prevent infection and carprofen (4.4 mg/kg) once a day for a miniumum of 7 days for pain management, with additional doses prescribed as needed. A fentanyl trans‐dermal patch was applied the day prior for surgery, and then replaced every 72 h for at least 216 h. Animals were observed twice daily for 2 weeks, then three times per week, to monitor general health, skin flap health, and weight‐bearing status. One animal was excluded at Week 4 due to implant failure resulting from accidental trapping of the hoof under the steel pen enclosure. Also, the prosthetic hoof was changed as needed. Animals were sacrificed at 12 weeks post‐surgery using the approved procedure, which followed the American Veterinary Medical Association guidelines.
During necropsy, the right forelimb was shaved and disarticulated at the carpal‐metacarpal joint. Post‐harvest, two sections of the interfacial tissues at the implant exit sites were collected from the anterior/posterior side for molecular analyses. For samples intended for IHC, collected tissues were marked and embedded in optimal cutting temperature (OCT) compound (Thermo Fisher, Waltham, MA) in a plastic mold and frozen using an isopentane bath pre‐chilled over dry ice. The frozen OCT‐embedded tissue was wrapped in aluminum foil and stored at ‐80°C until sectioning. The rest of the harvested limb with the implant still intact with the bone was processed for histological analysis (see below).
2.6. Histological Processing and Analyses
To analyze the skin‐device interface, tissue samples were fixed in 10% neutral formaldehyde and then dehydrated in ascending grades of alcohol using an automated tissue processor (Tissue Tek VIP; Sakura Finetek, Torrance, CA). They were then embedded in poly (methyl methacrylate) (PMMA). These PMMA blocks were sectioned using a precision saw (Isomet 4000; Buehler, Lake Bluff, IL) to obtain 2 mm thick sections, glued to a plastic slide, and then ground and polished to achieve thin, optically finished, smooth sections using an automated grinder polisher (Ecomet 300; Buehler, Lake Bluff, IL).
Histological evaluation of the skin interface was conducted post‐staining with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) using a previously published method [72]. Briefly, the slides were immersed in a heated Wiegert hematoxylin mixture (at 60°C) for 10 min, followed by bluing under running tap water. Subsequently, the slides were counterstained with 1% eosin for 2 min at 60°C. Finally, slides were cleaned with 70% ethanol, dried, and examined under a light microscope (Nikon, Melville, NY). Mirroring the previously published methodologies [63, 73], the downgrowth and GT area were measured using the Nikon Elements software (NIS; Nikon, Melville, NY) with the line measurement and area measurement tools, respectively. Four measurements were made from each of four animals, resulting in 16 measurements per group for both downgrowth and GT area.
2.7. Immunohistochemistry
To assess the expression of selected wound‐healing‐related inflammation markers, fresh‐frozen periprosthetic tissues were used. Ten‐micrometer‐thick sections were obtained using a cryotome (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA), and these sections were transferred onto charged microscope slides and stored at −80°C until further use. Prior to staining, the samples were fixed in 100% acetone for 15 min at room temperature, followed by a 5‐min wash in PBS; this fixation process was repeated three times. The slides were allowed to dry at room temperature for 15 min and then permeabilized with 0.3% Triton X‐100 in PBS for 1 h.
To minimize non‐specific binding, samples were initially blocked using BlockAid blocking solution (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA) for 1 h at room temperature. Following blocking, the slides were incubated overnight at 4°C with primary antibodies targeting transforming growth factor α (TGF‐α; HPA042297, Sigma‐Aldrich, St. Louis, MO), epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFr; ab52894, Abcam, Waltham, MA), collagen IV (COLIV; ab6586, Abcam, Waltham, MA), or keratin 6 (KRT6; HPA061168, Sigma‐Aldrich, St. Louis, MO). The following day, samples were incubated with the corresponding secondary antibodies (Abcam, Waltham, MA) for 1 h at room temperature. Antibodies targeting F‐actin (ab176752, Abcam, Waltham, MA) were also added to the samples containing TGFα and EGFr and incubated for 1 h at room temperature. After incubation, slides were washed thrice for 5 min each in PBS and mounted with a DAPI‐containing mounting medium (ab104139, Abcam, Waltham, MA). Spatial expression of TGFα and EGFr were captured using a confocal microscope (Olympus FV1000, Olympus, Japan), and percent fluorescence signals were quantified using ImageJ (NIH, Bethesda, MD) [74].
2.8. Statistical Analysis
All data is reported as means ± SEM. Statistical differences in downgrowth and GT area were calculated using mixed effects linear regression models, as these were clustered datasets with four repeated measurements per animal. This was used to account for the lack of independence that could be introduced by data clustering. A p‐value less than 0.05 was considered significant. All statistical analyses were conducted using STATA (StataCorp, College Station, TX).
3. Results
The XRD patterns of the in‐house synthesized FA closely matched the reference (RRUFF R060421). Crystallinity was calculated to be approximately 94.5% for samples sintered at 1150°C (Figure 4).
Figure 4.

Representative XRD patterns of FA powder sintered at 1150°C, which was used for low‐temperature coating, and a fluorapatite reference (RRUFF R060421).
After coating the disks with FA using the microblaster, the coated implant surfaces were analyzed using EDS to assess the uniformity of the deposition. EDS imaging confirmed the presence of FA on the titanium surface (Figure 5). Semi‐quantitative EDS analysis revealed atomic weight percentages of calcium (Ca), phosphorus (P), and fluorine (F) to be 22.1%, 12.6%, and 3.4%, respectively (Table 1). In total, the data accounted for only 3.4% of the uncoated surface (elements representing Ti alloy). As expected, the surface of the uncoated control implant showed only Ti, aluminum, vanadium, and oxygen (from the oxidized titanium oxides). It is worth noting that while adsorbed oxygen made up 53.2% of the surface composition of coated surfaces, only 3.8% was found in the uncoated Ti surface.
Figure 5.

(A and B) A set of scanning electron micrographs depicting the surface of the Ti substrate with no coating. (C) A representative EDS elemental map of the cross‐section of uncoated Ti6AlV4. (D and E) A representative set of scanning electron micrographs showing FA‐coated Ti substrate. (F) A representative EDS elemental map of the FA‐coated cross‐section. The EDS spectrum analysis revealed the elemental composition of the coating with prominent peaks corresponding to F, Ca, and P, confirming the presence of a calcium phosphate‐rich layer on the surface. Also, uncoated base substrate, peaks representing Ti‐6Al‐4V (i.e., Ti, Al, and V peaks) were also present post‐coating, indicating less than 100% overage of the surface with FA coating.
Table 1.
Relative surface elemental compositions of uncoated and FA‐coated titanium devices as determined by EDS data.
| Elements | F | O | Ti | Ca | P | Al | V | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Uncoated Ti | Atomic % | — | 3.8 | 80.3 | — | — | 12.3 | 3.6 |
| FA‐coated Ti | Atomic % | 3.4 | 53.2 | 3.4 | 22.1 | 12.6 | 5.1 | 0.2 |
Additionally, XPS analyses were conducted to confirm the relative atomic percentage of the FA coating on the Ti alloy surfaces. Figure 6 displays a representative scan with the elements labeled on the peaks. Table 2 presents the corresponding relative atomic percentages of the components.
Figure 6.

Top: A representative XPS spectrum of the O 1s, Ti 2p, Ca 2s, Ca 2p, C 1s, Al 2s, and Al 2p regions for the uncoated titanium alloy surface. Bottom: A representative XPS spectrum of the F 1s, Ca 2s, Ca 2p, P 2s, P 2p, C 1s, and O 1s regions for the FA‐coated titanium alloy surface. The presence of distinct peaks at ~684 eV (F 1s), ~347 eV (Ca 2p₃/₂), and ~133 eV (P 2p) confirms successful deposition of FA. The O 1s spectrum shows contributions from both phosphate (PO₄³⁻) and TiO2. Ti and Al 2p signals are significantly attenuated, indicating a continuous and thin coating.
Table 2.
Relative surface elemental compositions of uncoated and FA‐coated titanium devices calculated from XPS data.
| Elements | F | O | Ti | Ca | C | P | Al |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Uncoated Ti (Atomic %) | — | 31.0 | 9.3 | 1.2 | 55.6 | — | 1.2 |
| FA‐coated Ti (Atomic %) | 3.9 | 48.3 | 0.5 | 16.5 | 17.2 | 12.8 | 0.7 |
As stated in the methods section, five female Rambouillet sheep underwent amputation surgery and were implanted with a single FA‐coated device in the right metacarpal. One sheep was removed from the study due to injury. The remaining sheep survived to the endpoint without any signs of infection or inflammation at the implant exit site. At necropsy, skin samples were collected for IHC, and skin‐implant samples were collected for H&E staining.
Histomorphological evaluations were conducted on PMMA‐embedded and H&E‐stained sections. The data of this study group were compared to historical controls to assess downgrowth and GT area, with each group having a total of 16 (n = 16) measurements. While the FA‐coated implant group exhibited little to no downgrowth from the position at the time of surgery to its position at 12 weeks post‐healing, the uncoated Ti control group had noticeable downgrowth (Figure 7). In the FA‐coated group, when compared to the control group, only small areas of GTs were noticeable around the post at the implant exit site.
Figure 7.

A representative set of H&E‐stained cross sections of the tissue at the skin‐implant interface. Top row: Uncoated control samples. Bottom row: FA‐coated samples showing the granulation tissue (GT) area (blue circles) and downgrowth (blue arrows) at 12 weeks post‐surgery. The last three right‐hand images represent increasingly magnified implant exit sites (blue circles), showing morphologies of periprosthetic tissue. Effectively, fiber‐dense tissue morphology was present within the FA‐coated groups. In contrast, a cellular dense GT was present in the control group. Implant exit sites are indicated by white arrows pointing toward the bottom of the images. It is important to note that the area of GT is decreased (if present) in samples with FA‐coated implants compared to uncoated Ti implants.
Statistical analyses of GT areas revealed a significant decrease (p < 0.001) in the FA‐coated group compared to the uncoated control (Figure 8). Similarly, epithelial downgrowth was also significantly reduced (p < 0.001) in the FA‐coated device group relative to the control (Figure 8).
Figure 8.

Left: A bar chart illustrating the average granulation tissue area around the device at 12 weeks after implantation. The FA‐coated implants exhibited a significantly (p < 0.001) reduced GT compared to the uncoated Ti implant. Right: A bar chart presenting the average downgrowth from the position at surgery to the position after 12 weeks post‐implantation. The data indicate a significantly (p < 0.001) decreased downgrowth in FA‐coated implants relative to uncoated Ti implants.
To determine whether wound healing protein markers were expressed in tissue samples, IHC studies were undertaken. For this analysis, EGFr or TGFα were selected as surrogate markers due to their role in wound healing, and as they were differentially expressed in our previous studies [55, 63, 66, 75]. Compared to the uncoated control groups, the FA‐coated implant groups exhibited a decreased presence of fluorescent signals for both EGFr (Figure 9) and TGFα (Figure 10) within the GT. Additionally, a decrease in the migration marker KRT6 is seen in the epidermis of the FA‐coated implant group (Figure 11).
Figure 9.

A representative set of confocal micrographs showing the presence of EGFr within the granulation tissue at the interface of the skin and the implant. Green fluorescence indicates actin, while pink indicates EGFr expressions. There was more EGFr signal present in the granulation tissue area on the uncoated control compared to the FA‐coated implant.
Figure 10.

A representative set of confocal micrographs showing the presence of TGFα in the granulation tissue at the interface of the skin and the implant. Green is indicative of β‐actin, and pink is indicative of TGFα. There was more signal present in the granulation tissue area on the uncoated control compared to the FA‐coated implant.
Figure 11.

A representative set of confocal micrographs showing the presence of KRT6 in the granulation tissue at the interface of the skin and the implant. Red is indicative of KRT6, and blue is DAPI staining for the nucleus. There was more signal present in the epidermis on the uncoated control compared to the FA‐coated implant.
4. Discussion
This study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of FA‐coated percutaneous OI implants to prevent or reduce epithelial downgrowth under weight‐bearing conditions, leveraging the known ability of FA to promote periprosthetic epidermal cell adhesion. Our findings—including clinical and histological observations, histomorphometric data (downgrowth length and GT area), and IHC assessments—supported this hypothesis. The H&E‐stained sections revealed a marked reduction in cellular infiltration of the GT at the implant exit site, as well as a reduction in epithelial downgrowth in the FA‐coated group compared with controls (Figure 7). Complementary IHC analysis also demonstrated downregulation of wound‐healing markers [76], such as EGFr and TGFα, suggesting a stable and mature epithelial interface (Figures 9 and 10), as well as the absence of keratin 6 (KRT6) at the interface (Figure 11). Notably, there were statistically significant reductions (p < 0.05) in epithelial downgrowth and GT areas at the implant exit sites of FA‐coated devices (Figure 8), supported by our previous finding in rats [63].
It should be emphasized that the healing outcomes data generated in this research were indirect measures of the FA coating's ability to form HD‐based adhesion with the terminal epithelial cells to prevent continuous, ongoing wound healing, as commonly observed in all percutaneous devices. Visualization of HD at the interface using transmission electron microscopy (TEM) would have provided direct evidence of HD plaques between epithelial cells and implant surfaces. However, the embedding technique used in this study was unsuitable for directly visualizing HD plaque structures. Future studies should, therefore, employ definitive methods capable of directly confirming HD formation to further substantiate this mechanism of cutaneous integration.
The use of apatite coatings to reduce epithelial downgrowth and promote healing around percutaneous OI implants is not a novel concept. HA, in particular, has been utilized in intraosseous transcutaneous amputation prostheses, various dental implants, and BAHAs with mixed clinical outcomes [8, 10, 39, 77, 78, 79]. In these studies, the HA coatings have been shown to promote a soft tissue seal at the skin‐device interface during short‐term translation studies, but they have demonstrated limited clinical success in human patients [8, 52, 80]. Among these clinical devices, BAHA has shown the most effectiveness. Most likely, this is because BAHA devices are non‐weight‐bearing and are placed in an area of the skull where the soft tissues can be easily immobilized by thinning and adhesion onto the peri‐implant periosteum [81].
In contrast, both intraosseous transcutaneous amputation prostheses and dental applications of HA exhibit premature resorption of the HA coating, thereby reducing the effectiveness of the approach [82]. When investigating the HA coating techniques, the most common method for HA deposition for clinical application is plasma spraying, which involves heating the apatite to extremely high temperatures (up to 16,000°C) [83]. At this temperature, molten HA particles are propelled onto the implant surface via a plasma jet and rapidly cooled to form a coating [84, 85]. Although plasma spray creates a uniform HA coating on the surface, the high heat required for this process ultimately reduces the apatite coating's crystallinity to around 65%–70% [86, 87], and probably a proportion of the coating may phase transform into other Ca‐P forms, such as beta‐tricalcium phosphate [88, 89, 90]. Although both HA and beta‐tricalcium phosphate are bioactive and osteoconductive [91], and suitable for orthopedic applications [90], the current percutaneous application requires high crystallinity, similar to that of dental enamel, where the longevity of the coating is of paramount importance [92, 93, 94].
In comparison, a highly crystalline FA form is sparingly biosorbable, just like human tooth enamel, which provides long‐term durability and stability. Its presence at the tissue‐implant interface creates a durable protective layer and promotes the formation of HDs with the junctional epithelium, resulting in a robust, lifelong soft‐tissue seal [54, 55]. This is particularly critical in weight‐bearing applications, where mechanical forces at the skin‐implant interface can compromise healing and integration [95, 96]. Thus, in this study, we combined the use of FA with high crystallinity (94.5%, Figure 4) and used a low‐temperature microblasting technique to address two significant foreseen limitations of plasma‐sprayed HA coatings for percutaneous application; these are increased bioabsorbability and thermal degradation, respectively. This strategy appeared to provide a more stable coating, at least for the duration of this 12‐week study.
As stated, this study employed a low‐temperature microblasting coating technique to preserve the high crystallinity of sintered FA powders. Both EDS and XPS (Figures 3 and 4; Tables 1 and 2) corroborated the presence of a thin FA coating on the implant substrate. The data also confirmed the utility of the above surface surveying techniques in apatite coating applications. The XPS scans of the coated surfaces revealed distinct peaks at approximately 684 eV (F 1s), 347 eV (Ca 2p₃/₂), and 133 eV (P 2p), verifying the presence of FA. In addition, attenuation of Ti and Al 2p signals relative to uncoated controls indicated effective coverage of the FA layer on the titanium alloy surface. The SEM images and corresponding EDS analyses further confirmed the uniformity of the coating. While ~81% of the uncoated surfaces consisted of Ti, only 3.4% Ti was detected on the coated samples, signifying substantial surface coverage of the employed coating technique. It is worth noting that XPS only probes the uppermost 2–5 nm of the surface, whereas EDS can penetrate to depths of approximately 0.1–3 µm [97, 98], suggesting that the FA coating thickness likely falls within the micron range, as both techniques confirmed coating coverage. Nonetheless, additional techniques are needed to precisely quantify the coating thickness. One could employ profilometry, ellipsometry, X‐ray microanalysis, and cross‐sectional SEM for these analyses [99, 100]. Although various powder coating techniques, such as plasma spray and sputter coating, exist for depositing apatite materials onto titanium surfaces at a 1 mm scale, they also reduce the crystallinity of FA and increase the byproducts of FA due to the high temperature, which could aid the faster resorption of the coating [83, 85, 92, 101]. As the current macroblast technique is not capable of depositing a thick coating, comparative investigations of coating techniques are warranted to optimize coating techniques and performance in future studies.
The most notable finding was the statistically significant differences in GT tissue area at the implant exit sites between the groups (p < 0.001). The increased area of GT with high cellular density observed in the uncoated devices suggested a more pro‐inflammatory microenvironment, potentially resulting from immune responses to bacterial infiltration, which is facilitated by the lack of an epithelial seal at the skin‐implant interface. In contrast, the coated devices appeared to promote more favorable healing outcomes, with reduced cellular infiltration within the GTs, suggesting less inflammatory, pro‐healing environments, as evidenced by reduced EGFr and TGFα expression, which further supported our hypothesis. The EGFr is known to play multiple roles during the early phases of wound healing [102, 103], including promoting inflammation, angiogenesis, and re‐epithelialization [102]. Their presence is enhanced by neutrophil infiltration [102, 104]. Thus, the reduced EGFr expression on coated surfaces could indicate successful epidermal integration with the implant surface. This could also limit bacterial ingress and associated immune responses within the periprosthetic soft tissues (Figure 9). Additionally, EGFr is involved in stimulating epithelial cell proliferation and migration [105], further emphasizing their role in wound dynamics of periprosthetic tissue at the implant exit site.
It is worth noting that reduced expression of TGFα (a part of the EGF superfamily) was noted in the coated group, perhaps a better indicator of the coating's ability to limit downgrowth (Figure 10), as TGFα is known to stimulate keratinocyte migration and proliferation [106]. It is widely accepted that, during the re‐epithelialization stage of the normal wound‐healing process, the avascular epidermis migrates along the highly vascular GT, seeking signals to form tight cell‐to‐cell connections and reestablish its barrier function [107, 108]. When this cell‐to‐cell connection is formed, the so‐called migrating epidermis expressing KRT6 can then switch phenotypes and start differentiating to the upper layers of epithelium expressing KRT1 and KRT10 [109, 110]. This marks the end of the re‐epithelialization phase of wound healing, and concludes the initial wound‐healing process. As shown in numerous studies of percutaneous OI devices, the presence of skin‐protruding implants disrupts the typical wound‐healing trajectory [63, 111, 112, 113, 114]. In addition, the presence of an area of vascularized periprosthetic GT instigates epithelial migration along the implant surface, resulting in clinically observed downgrowth [29]. It is important to note the absence of KRT6 on the coated devices, when compared to the control titanium surface (Figure 11). The data from this study further support the notion that (similar to dental enamel), establishing a HD connection between the implant surface and the epithelial cells may prevent the exacerbated downgrowth commonly observed with percutaneous devices [55]. This conclusion is supported by the statistically significant differences in downgrowth observed between the coated and uncoated groups.
Interestingly, TGFα was upregulated in a previous rat study [63]. In contrast, in this study, its expression was downregulated. Although puzzling, it may be related to the stages of wound healing themselves. In the previous rat study, rats were sacrificed 4 weeks post‐implantation, but in this study, sheep were observed for 12 weeks. Literature indicates that TGFα expression level in non‐ischemic wounds varies during wound healing [115]. Also, there may be species differences in wound healing between rats and sheep. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that, at the completion of wound healing with FA‐coated devices, expression of TGFα expression is expected to subside. Moreover, both EGF and TGF chemokines are expressed during the re‐epithelialization phase of wound healing [102]. Since epithelial migration and the subsequent downgrowth are ongoing when no coating was used (i.e., control), the presence of EGF and TGF was expected and has been supported as seen in Figures 6 and 7. It should be pointed out that EGF and TGFα share receptor EGFr, and when bound to EGFr, enhance cell proliferation to promote wound healing [76, 116, 117].
This study was a proof‐of‐concept study demonstrating the importance of surfaces in regulating and promoting wound healing around percutaneous devices. Two major limitations exist with this study; they are: the small sample sizes for each group and the short follow‐up. Increasing the number of animals per group would be beneficial to confirm the presence of any differences between groups. Increasing the length of follow‐up would help to confirm the stability of any interaction between the epithelium and the FA‐coating—an important prerequisite for any future human studies. In addition, historical samples were used for the uncoated Ti control. The long‐term mechanical and chemical stability of the coating was not studied, and a degradation study of the coating on the surface, as well as the coating thickness, needs to be conducted. Furthermore, this study focuses on only one type of biomaterial coating and one type of coating technique. Future studies should include similar bioactive biomaterials, time series, and bulk RNA sequencing, as well as single‐cell RNA studies, to investigate the underlying mechanisms. Since clinical studies indicate that cutaneous OI devices have an infection rate of up to 56% [36, 37], we also need to test rates of infection in an effective infection model. Finally, although we suspect that the FA played a role in promoting expression of the HDs at the skin‐device interface, thereby limiting downgrowth around the stoma, no studies were performed to quantify the level of HD expression. Such quantification is extremely difficult in the translational model and should be conducted in cell‐culture studies, which are currently being undertaken.
5. Conclusion
In a well‐established sheep amputation model, FA‐coated weight‐bearing percutaneous OI devices demonstrated reduced epithelial downgrowth and smaller regions of GT with markedly reduced cellular infiltration compared to uncoated titanium controls. IHC analysis revealed significant differential expressions of EGFr and TGFα, further supporting the role of FA coating in modulating wound healing responses at the soft tissue–implant interface. Collectively, these findings indicate that FA coating represents a promising strategy for promoting stable healing at percutaneous implant exit sites.
Author Contributions
Samantha Steyl contributed to animal studies, data acquisition, documentation, data analysis and interpretation, and manuscript drafting and critical review of the submission. James Peter Beck and Jay Agarwal contributed to the study design, performed animal surgeries, and critically reviewed the manuscript. Jill Shea contributed to the study design, data acquisition and analysis, drafting, and critically reviewed the manuscript. Ruben Sundramurti contributed to the acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of histological data and critically reviewed the final manuscript. David Rou contributed to the acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of immunohistochemistry data and critically reviewed the final submission. Kent N. Bachus helped to acquire funding for the study, contributed to the study design, and provided a critical review of the manuscript. Sujee Jeyapalina acquired funding for the study and contributed to the study design, data acquisition and analysis, drafting, critical review, and final submission of the manuscript.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Rehabilitation Research and Development (VA RR&D) Service under award number 1I01 RX003359‐01A1. The authors gratefully acknowledge the University of Utah Office of Comparative Medicine (OCM) for providing animal care. We especially extend our sincere gratitude to Dr. Caroline Garrett for her expertise and exceptional help in conducting the animal procedures. This research also utilized resources and equipment from the University of Utah Health Sciences Center Cell Imaging Core. In addition, this work made use of the Nanofab and EMSAL shared facilities within the Micron Technology Foundation Inc. Microscopy Suite, which is supported by the John and Marcia Price College of Engineering, the Health Sciences Center, and the Office of the Vice President for Research at the University of Utah. We thank all core personnel for their technical assistance and guidance with imaging analyses. The authors appreciate the continued institutional support that enabled access to these state‐of‐the‐art facilities.
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
References
- 1. Al Muderis M., Khemka A., Lord S. J., Van de Meent H., and Frölke J. P., “Safety of Osseointegrated Implants for Transfemoral Amputees: A Two‐Center Prospective Cohort Study,” Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 98, no. 11 (2016): 900–909, https://journals.lww.com/jbjsjournal/fulltext/2016/06010/safety_of_osseointegrated_implants_for.3.aspx. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Brånemark R., Berlin Ö., Hagberg K., Bergh P., Gunterberg B., and Rydevik B., “A Novel Osseointegrated Percutaneous Prosthetic System for the Treatment of Patients With Transfemoral Amputation: A Prospective Study of 51 Patients,” Bone & Joint Journal 96B, no. 1 (2014): 106–113, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24395320/. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Hagberg K. and Brnemark R., “One Hundred Patients Treated With Osseointegrated Transfemoral Amputation Prostheses ‐ Rehabilitation Perspective,” Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development 46, no. 3 (2009): 331–344. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Juhnke D.‐L., Beck J. P., Jeyapalina S., and Aschoff H. H., “Fifteen Years of Experience With Integral‐Leg‐Prosthesis: Cohort Study of Artificial Limb Attachment System,” Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Development 52 (1999): 407–420, 10.1682/JRRD.2014.11.0280. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Van De Meent H., Hopman M. T., and Frölke J. P., “Walking Ability and Quality of Life in Subjects With Transfemoral Amputation: A Comparison of Osseointegration With Socket Prostheses,” Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 94, no. 11 (2013): 2174–2178. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Van Hoof M., S. Wigren J. Ivarsson Blechert, et al., “Clinical Outcomes of Soft Tissue Preservation Surgery With Hydroxyapatite‐Coated Abutments Compared to Traditional Percutaneous Bone Conduction Hearing Implant Surgery—A Pragmatic Multi‐Center Randomized Controlled Trial,” Frontiers in Surgery 7, no. 5 (2020), https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32211417/. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Larsson A., Wigren S., Andersson M., Ekeroth G., Flynn M., and Nannmark U., “Histologic Evaluation of Soft Tissue Integration of Experimental Abutments for Bone‐Anchored Hearing Implants Using Surgery Without Soft Tissue Reduction,” Otology & Neurotology 33, no. 8 (2012): 1445–1451, https://journals.lww.com/otology-neurotology/Fulltext/2012/10000/Histologic_Evaluation_of_Soft_Tissue_Integration.28.aspx. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. van Hoof M., Wigren S., Duimel H., et al., “Can the Hydroxyapatite‐Coated Skin‐Penetrating Abutment for Bone Conduction Hearing Implants Integrate With the Surrounding Skin?,” Frontiers in Surgery 2 (2015): 45, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/surgery/articles/10.3389/fsurg.2015.00045/full. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Pye A. D., Lockhart D. E. A., Dawson M. P., Murray C. A., and Smith A. J., “A Review of Dental Implants and Infection,” Journal of Hospital Infection 72, no. 2 (2009): 104–110. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Pendegrass C., Lancashire H., Fontaine C., Chan G., Hosseini P., and Blunn G., “Intraosseous Transcutaneous Amputation Prostheses Versus Dental Implants: A Comparison Between Keratinocyte and Gingival Epithelial Cell Adhesion In Vitro,” European Cells and Materials 29 (2015): 237–249, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25890596/. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Flatebø R. S., Johannessen A. C., Grønningsæter A. G., et al., “Host Response to Titanium Dental Implant Placement Evaluated in a Human Oral Model,” Journal of Periodontology 77, no. 7 (2006): 1201–1210, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1902/jop.2006.050406. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Linetskiy I., Demenko V., Linetska L., and Yefremov O., “Impact of Annual Bone Loss and Different Bone Quality on Dental Implant Success A Finite Element Study,” Computers in Biology and Medicine 91, no. 1 (2017): 318–325. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Brånemark P.‐I., Zarb G. A., Albrektsson T., and Rosen H. M., “Tissue‐Integrated Prostheses. Osseointegration in Clinical Dentistry,” Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 77, no. 3 (1986): 496–497, https://journals.lww.com/plasreconsurg/citation/1986/03000/tissue_integrated_prostheses__osseointegration_in.37.aspx. [Google Scholar]
- 14. Brånemark R., Brånemark P.‐I., Rydevik B., and Myers R. R., “Osseointegration in Skeletal Reconstruction and Rehabilitation: A Review,” Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development 38, no. 2 (2001): 175–181. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Aschoff H. H., Kennon R. E., Keggi J. M., and Rubin L. E., “Transcutaneous, Distal Femoral, Intramedullary Attachment for Above‐The‐Knee Prostheses: An Endo‐Exo Device,” Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 92, no. SUPPL. 2 (2010): 180–186, https://journals.lww.com/jbjsjournal/fulltext/2010/12002/transcutaneous,_distal_femoral,_intramedullary.18.aspx. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Staubach K. H. and Gründei H., “Die Erste Osteointegrierte Perkutane Prothesenverankerung Für Oberschenkel‐Amputierte ‐ The First Osseointegrated Percutaneous Anchor for an Exoprosthesis, for Routine Use in Above‐Knee Amputees,” Biomedizinische Technik/Biomedical Engineering 46, no. 12 (2001): 355–361, https://europepmc.org/article/med/11820163. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Nguyen T. T., Wang B., Alas H., et al., “Prosthesis Embodiment in Lower Extremity Limb Loss: A Narrative Review,” Applied Sciences 2025 15 (2025): 4952, https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/15/9/4952/htm. [Google Scholar]
- 18. Hillock R., Allison D., and Moyer B., “Patient Outcomes in a Novel Osseointegrated Device for Transfemoral Amputation: A Case Series,” Journal of Orthopaedic Experience & Innovation 5, no. 1 (2024), 10.60118/001c.91023. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Turner S. and McGregor A. H., “Perceived Effect of Socket Fit on Major Lower Limb Prosthetic Rehabilitation: A Clinician and Amputee Perspective,” Archives of Rehabilitation Research and Clinical Translation 2, no. 3 (2020): 100059, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7853327/. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Hagberg K. and Brånemark R., “Consequences of Non‐Vascular Trans‐Femoral Amputation: A Survey of Quality of Life, Prosthetic Use and Problems,” Prosthetics and Orthotics International 25, no. 3 (2001): 186–194, 10.1080/03093640108726601. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Lyon C. C., Kulkarni J., Zimersonc E., Van Ross E., and Beck M. H., “Skin Disorders in Amputees,” Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology 42, no. 3 (2000): 501–507. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Meulenbelt H. E., Geertzen J. H., Jonkman M. F., and Dijkstra P. U., “Determinants of Skin Problems of the Stump in Lower‐Limb Amputees,” Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 90, no. 1 (2009): 74–81. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Demet K., Martinet N., Guillemin F., Paysant J., and André J. M., “Health Related Quality of Life and Related Factors in 539 Persons With Amputation of Upper and Lower Limb,” Disability and Rehabilitation 25, no. 9 (2003): 480–486, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0963828031000090434. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Pezzin L. E., Dillingham T. R., MacKenzie E. J., Ephraim P., and Rossbach P., “Use and Satisfaction With Prosthetic Limb Devices and Related Services,” Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 85, no. 5 (2004): 723–729. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Pezzin L. E., Dillingham T. R., and MacKenzie E. J., “Rehabilitation and the Long‐Term Outcomes of Persons With Trauma‐Related Amputations,” Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 81, no. 3 (2000): 292–300. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Winter G. D., “Transcutaneous Implants: Reactions of the Skin‐Implant Interface,” Journal of Biomedical Materials Research 8, no. 3 (1974): 99–113, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jbm.820080311. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Jeyapalina S., Beck J. P., Agarwal J., and Bachus K. N., “A 24‐Month Evaluation of a Percutaneous Osseointegrated Limb‐Skin Interface in an Ovine Amputation Model,” Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine 28, no. 11 (2017): 179, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10856-017-5980-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Weigel T., Christ B., Dembski S., et al., “Biomimetic Connection of Transcutaneous Implants With Skin,” Advanced Healthcare Materials 12, no. 30 (2023): 2301131, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/adhm.202301131. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. von Recum A. F., “Applications and Failure Modes of Percutaneous Devices: A Review,” Journal of Biomedical Materials Research 18, no. 4 (1984): 323–336, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jbm.820180403. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Zigterman B. G. R., Van den Borre C., Braem A., and Mommaerts M. Y., “Titanium Surface Modifications and Their Soft‐Tissue Interface on Nonkeratinized Soft Tissues—A Systematic Review (Review),” Biointerphases 14, no. 4 (2019): 040802. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Holt B. M., Bachus K. N., Beck J. P., Bloebaum R. D., and Jeyapalina S., “Immediate Post‐Implantation Skin Immobilization Decreases Skin Regression Around Percutaneous Osseointegrated Prosthetic Implant Systems,” Journal of Biomedical Materials Research. Part A 101A, no. 7 (2013): 2075–2082, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jbm.a.34510. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Anderson J. M., Rodriguez A., and Chang D. T., “Foreign Body Reaction to Biomaterials,” Seminars in Immunology 20, no. 2 (2008): 86–100. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Klopfleisch R. and Jung F., “The Pathology of the Foreign Body Reaction Against Biomaterials,” Journal of Biomedical Materials Research. Part A 105, no. 3 (2017): 927–940, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jbm.a.35958. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Luttikhuizen D. T., Harmsen M. C., and Van Luyn M. J., “Cellular and Molecular Dynamics in the Foreign Body Reaction,” Tissue Engineering 12, no. 7 (2006): 1955–1970, 10.1089/ten.2006.12.1955, https://home.liebertpub.com/ten. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Hu W. J., Eaton J. W., Ugarova T. P., and Tang L., “Molecular Basis of Biomaterial‐Mediated Foreign Body Reactions,” Blood 98, no. 4 (2001): 1231–1238, 10.1182/blood.V98.4.1231. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Jeyapalina S., Beck J. P., Bachus K. N., Williams D. L., and Bloebaum R. D., “Efficacy of a Porous‐Structured Titanium Subdermal Barrier for Preventing Infection in Percutaneous Osseointegrated Prostheses,” Journal of Orthopaedic Research 30, no. 8 (2012): 1304–1311, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jor.22081. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Tillander J., Hagberg K., Hagberg L., and Brånemark R., “Osseointegrated Titanium Implants for Limb Prostheses Attachments: Infectious Complications,” Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research 468, no. 10 (2010): 2781–2788, https://journals.lww.com/clinorthop/Fulltext/2010/10000/Osseointegrated_Titanium_Implants_for_Limb.31.aspx. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Pendegrass C. J., Middleton C. A., and Blunn G. W., “Fibronectin Functionalized Hydroxyapatite Coatings: Improving Dermal Fibroblast Adhesion in Vitro and In Vivo,” Advanced Engineering Materials 12, no. 8 (2010): B365–B373. [Google Scholar]
- 39. Pendegrass C. J., Goodship A. E., and Blunn G. W., “Development of a Soft Tissue Seal Around Bone‐Anchored Transcutaneous Amputation Prostheses,” Biomaterials 27, no. 23 (2006): 4183–4191. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40. Pendegrass C. J., Goodship A. E., Price J. S., and Blunn G. W., “Nature's Answer to Breaching the Skin Barrier: An Innovative Development for Amputees,” Journal of Anatomy 209, no. 1 (2006): 59–67. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41. Daugaard H., Elmengaard B., Bechtold J. E., Jensen T., and Soballe K., “The Effect on Bone Growth Enhancement of Implant Coatings With Hydroxyapatite and Collagen Deposited Electrochemically and by Plasma Spray,” Journal of Biomedical Materials Research. Part A 92A, no. 3 (2010): 913–921, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jbm.a.32303. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42. Jensen T., Jakobsen T., Baas J., et al., “Hydroxyapatite Nanoparticles in Poly‐D,L‐Lactic Acid Coatings on Porous Titanium Implants Conducts Bone Formation,” Journal of Biomedical Materials Research. Part A 95A, no. 3 (2010): 665–672, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jbm.a.32863. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43. Jensen T., Dolatshahi‐Pirouz A., Foss M., et al., “Interaction of Human Mesenchymal Stem Cells With Osteopontin Coated Hydroxyapatite Surfaces,” Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces 75, no. 1 (2010): 186–193. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44. Kang N. V., Al‐Ajam Y., Woollard A., and Burr N., “Use of an Osseointegrated Intraosseous Transcutaneous Amputation Prosthesis for Amputated Fingers Is Followed by Frequent Infection and Implant Removal,” Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics 37, no. 2 (2024): 81–91, https://journals.lww.com/jpojournal/fulltext/2025/04000/use_of_an_osseointegrated_intraosseous.3.aspx. [Google Scholar]
- 45. Friederichs R. J., Brooks R. A., Ueda M., and Best S. M., “In Vitro Osteoclast Formation and Resorption of Silicon‐Substituted Hydroxyapatite Ceramics,” Journal of Biomedical Materials Research. Part A 103, no. 10 (2015): 3312–3322, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jbm.a.35470. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46. Redey S. A., Razzouk S., Rey C., et al. 1999. Osteoclast Adhesion and Activity on Synthetic Hydroxyapatite, Carbonated Hydroxyapatite, and Natural Calcium Carbonate: Relationship to Surface Energies, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 47. Gomi K., Lowenberg B., Shapiro G., and Davies J. E., “Resorption of Sintered Synthetic Hydroxyapatite by Osteoclasts In Vitro,” Biomaterials 14, no. 2 (1993): 91–96. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48. ten Harkel B., Schoenmaker T., Picavet D. I., Davison N. L., de Vries T. J., and Everts V., “The Foreign Body Giant Cell Cannot Resorb Bone, But Dissolves Hydroxyapatite Like Osteoclasts,” PLoS One 10, no. 10 (2015): e0139564, https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0139564. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49. Iafisco M., Varoni E., Battistella E., et al., “The Cooperative Effect of Size and Crystallinity Degree on the Resorption of Biomimetic Hydroxyapatite for Soft Tissue Augmentation,” International Journal of Artificial Organs 33, no. 11 (2010): 765–774, 10.1177/039139881003301101?download=true. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50. Rodovalho A. J. R. L., Barbosa W. T., Vieira J. L., et al., “Influence of Size and Crystallinity of Nanohydroxyapatite (nHA) Particles on the Properties of Polylactic Acid/nHA Nanocomposite Scaffolds Produced by 3D Printing,” Journal of Materials Research and Technology 30 (2024): 3101–3111, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2238785424008226. [Google Scholar]
- 51. Overgaard S., Bromose U., Lind M., Bünger C., and Søballe K., “The Influence of Crystallinity of the Hydroxyapatite Coating on the Fixation of Implants: Mechanical AND Histomorphometric Results,” Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 81B, no. 4 (1999): 725–731. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52. Kanzara T., Walijee H., Badar Sheikh R., Lau A., and Temple R., “Long‐Term Soft Tissue Outcomes for Hydroxyapatite‐Coated Bone‐Anchored Hearing Implant Surgery,” European Archives of Oto‐Rhino‐Laryngology 276:11 276, no. 11 (2019): 3067–3072, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00405-019-05609-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53. Kang N. V., Morritt D., Pendegrass C., and Blunn G., “Use of ITAP Implants for Prosthetic Reconstruction of Extra‐Oral Craniofacial Defects,” Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery 66, no. 4 (2013): 497–505, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23270664/. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54. Hormia M., Owaribe K., and Virtanen I., “The Dento‐Epithelial Junction: Cell Adhesion by Type I Hemidesmosomes in the Absence of a True Basal Lamina,” Journal of Periodontology 72, no. 6 (2001): 788–797. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55. Fischer N. G. and Aparicio C., “Junctional Epithelium and Hemidesmosomes: Tape and Rivets for Solving the “Percutaneous Device Dilemma” in Dental and Other Permanent Implants,” Bioactive Materials 18 (2022): 178–198. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56. Nakamura M., “Histological and Immunological Characteristics of the Junctional Epithelium,” Japanese Dental Science Review 54, no. 2 (2018): 59–65. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57. Robinson C., Connell S., Kirkham J., et al. [date unknown]. Dental Enamel a Biological Ceramic: Regular Substructures in Enamel Hydroxyapatite Crystals Revealed by Atomic Force Microscopy, www.rsc.org/materials.
- 58. Ganss B. and Abbarin N., “Maturation and Beyond: Proteins in the Developmental Continuum From Enamel Epithelium to Junctional Epithelium,” Frontiers in Physiology 5, no. SEP (2014): 112472, www.frontiersin.org. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59. Tredwin C. J., Young A. M., Abou Neel E. A., Georgiou G., and Knowles J. C., “Hydroxyapatite, Fluor‐Hydroxyapatite and Fluorapatite Produced via the Sol‐Gel Method: Dissolution Behaviour and Biological Properties After Crystallisation,” Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine 25, no. 1 (2014): 47–53, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24052344/. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60. Yan G., Moribe K., Otsuka M., Papangkorn K., and Higuchi W. I., “Quantitative Determination of Lattice Fluoride Effects on the Solubility and Crystallinity of Carbonated Apatites With Incorporated Fluoride,” Caries Research 47, no. 3 (2013): 193–202, https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/345080. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61. Al‐Noaman A., Karpukhina N., Rawlinson S. C. F., and Hill R. G., “Effect of FA on Bioactivity of Bioactive Glass Coating for Titanium Dental Implant. Part I: Composite Powder,” Journal of Non‐Crystalline Solids 364 (2013): 92–98. [Google Scholar]
- 62. Bennett B. T., Beck J. P., Papangkorn K., et al., “Characterization and Evaluation of Fluoridated Apatites for the Development of Infection‐Free Percutaneous Devices,” Materials Science and Engineering: C 100 (2019): 665–675. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63. Steyl S. K., Beck J. P., Agarwal J. P., Bachus K. N., Rou D. L., and Jeyapalina S., “Fluorapatite‐Coated Percutaneous Devices Promote Wound Healing and Limit Epithelial Downgrowth at the Skin‐Device Interface,” Journal of Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine 2023 (2023): 1–10, https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jterm/2023/2212035/. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64. Miller A., Beck J. P., White A., et al., “Utilization of Bulk RNA Sequencing for the Evaluation of Keratin Nanomaterials as a Coating for Percutaneous Devices,” Journal of Biomedical Materials Research, Part B: Applied Biomaterials 113, no. 3 (2025): e35551, 10.1002/jbm.b.35551. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65. Oyane A., Hyodo K., Uchida M., Sogo Y., and Ito A., “Preliminary In Vivo Study of Apatite and Laminin‐Apatite Composite Layers on Polymeric Percutaneous Implants,” Journal of Biomedical Materials Research, Part B: Applied Biomaterials 97B, no. 1 (2011): 96–104, 10.1002/jbm.b.31790. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66. Jansen J. A., Van Der Waerden J. P. C. M., and De Groot K., “Epithelial Reaction to Percutaneous Implant Materials: In Vitro and In Vivo Experiments,” Journal of Investigative Surgery 2, no. 1 (1989): 29–49, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/08941938909016502. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67. Jeyapalina S., Beck J. P., Bachus K. N., Chalayon O., and Bloebaum R. D., “Radiographic Evaluation of Bone Adaptation Adjacent to Percutaneous Osseointegrated Prostheses in a Sheep Model,” Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research 472, no. 10 (2014): 2966–2977, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11999-014-3523-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68. Jeyapalina S., Beck J. P., Drew A., Bloebaum R. D., and Bachus K. N., “Variation in Bone Response to the Placement of Percutaneous Osseointegrated Endoprostheses: A 24‐Month Follow‐Up in Sheep,” PLoS One 14, no. 10 (2019): e0221850, https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0221850. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69. Jeyapalina S., Beck P. J., Bloebaum R. D., and Bachus K. N., “Progression of Bone Ingrowth and Attachment Strength for Stability of Percutaneous Osseointegrated Prostheses,” Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research 472, no. 10 (2014): 2957–2965, https://journals.lww.com/clinorthop/fulltext/2014/10000/progression_of_bone_ingrowth_and_attachment.10.aspx. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70. Jeyapalina S., Beck P. J., Bloebaum R. D., and Bachus K. N., “Progression of Bone Ingrowth and Attachment Strength for Stability of Percutaneous Osseointegrated Prostheses,” Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research 472, no. 10 (2014): 2957–2965, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24258685/. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71. Shelton T. J., Peter Beck J., Bloebaum R. D., and Bachus K. N., “Percutaneous Osseointegrated Prostheses for Amputees: Limb Compensation in a 12‐Month Ovine Model,” Journal of Biomechanics 44, no. 15 (2011): 2601–2606. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72. Feldman A. T. and Wolfe D., “Tissue Processing and Hematoxylin and Eosin Staining.” Methods in Molecular Biology (Springer Protocols, 2014). 1180, 31–43, https://link.springer.com/protocol/10.1007/978-1-4939-1050-2_3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73. Mitchell S. J., Jeyapalina S., Nichols F. R., Agarwal J., and Bachus K. N., “Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Limits Downgrowth in Percutaneous Devices,” Wound Repair and Regeneration 24, no. 1 (2016): 35–44, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/wrr.12373. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74. Schneider C. A., Rasband W. S., and Eliceiri K. W., “NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 Years of Image Analysis,” Nature Methods 9, no. 7 (2012): 671–675, https://www.nature.com/articles/nmeth.2089. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75. Jeyapalina S., Colombo J. S., Beck J. P., Agarwal J. P., Schmidt L. A., and Bachus K. N., “Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Genes Are Overexpressed Within the Periprosthetic Soft‐Tissue Around Percutaneous Devices: A Pilot Study,” Journal of Biomedical Materials Research, Part B: Applied Biomaterials 108, no. 2 (2020): 527–537, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jbm.b.34409. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76. Schultz G., Clark W., and Rotatori D. S., “EGF and TGF‐α in Wound Healing and Repair,” Journal of Cellular Biochemistry 45, no. 4 (1991): 346–352, 10.1002/jcb.240450407. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77. Pendegrass C. J., Oddy M. J., Cannon S. R., Briggs T., Goodship A. E., and Blunn G. W., “A Histomorphological Study of Tendon Reconstruction to a Hydroxyapatite‐Coated Implant: Regeneration of a Neo‐Enthesis In Vivo,” Journal of Orthopaedic Research 22, no. 6 (2004): 1316–1324, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1016/j.orthres.2004.03.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78. Labella R., Braden M., and Deb S., “Novel Hydroxyapatite‐Based Dental Composites,” Biomaterials 15, no. 15 (1994): 1197–1200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 79. Jansen J. A., van de Waerden J. P. C. M., Wolke J. G. C., and De Groot K., “Histologic Evaluation of the Osseous Adaptation to Titanium and Hydroxyapatite‐Coated Titanium Implants,” Journal of Biomedical Materials Research 25, no. 8 (1991): 973–989, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jbm.820250805. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 80. Høgsbro M., Agger A., and Johansen L. V., “Bone Anchored Hearing Implant Surgery: 1 Year Follow‐Up Data Shows No Effect of Hydroxyapatite Coating on Soft Tissue Reaction After Loading at 1 Week,” Otology & Neurotology 38, no. 6 (2017): e152–e158, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28481781/. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81. Wilkie M. D., Chakravarthy K. M., Mamais C., and Temple R. H., “Osseointegrated Hearing Implant Surgery Using a Novel Hydroxyapatite‐Coated Concave Abutment Design,” Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery 151, no. 6 (2014): 1014–1019, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0194599814551150%3Fcasa_token%3DiLayFUsV26gAAAAA:EjRieGr3qDHow0ds7wWV3rvn6nGC9in_3sfDNXkOX2CatKCyib2lSRqKhZUSQw3ukEGO9YKm31NhNpg&hl=en&sa=T&oi=ucasa&ct=ucasa&ei=2wJDaJXSLOWs6rQP6rCnuAU&scisig=AAZF9b9liYRRsGADq5ZHCmuOeOO6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 82. Meijerink H. J., Gardeniers J. W. M., Buma P., Lemmens J. A. M., and Schreurs B. W., “Hydroxyapatite Does Not Improve the Outcome of a Bipolar Hemiarthroplasty,” Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research 421, no. 421 (2004): 143–150, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15123939/. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 83. Talib R. J. and Toff M. R., “Plasma‐Sprayed Coating of Hydroxyapatite on Metal Implants‐‐A Review,” Medical Journal of Malaysia 59, no. Suppl B (2004): 153–154. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 84. Lee T. M., Yang C. Y., Chang E., and Tsai R. S., “Comparison of Plasma‐Sprayed Hydroxyapatite Coatings and Zirconia‐Reinforced Hydroxyapatite Composite Coatings: In Vivo Study,” Journal of Biomedical Materials Research. Part A 71, no. 4 (2004): 652–660. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 85. Lu Y. P., Li M. S., Li S. T., Wang Z. G., and Zhu R. F., “Plasma‐Sprayed Hydroxyapatite+Titania Composite Bond Coat for Hydroxyapatite Coating on Titanium Substrate,” Biomaterials 25, no. 18 (2004): 4393–4403. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 86. Tian Y. S., Qian X. L., and Chen M. Q., “Effect of Saturated Steam Treatment on the Crystallinity of Plasma‐Sprayed Hydroxyapatite Coatings,” Surface and Coatings Technology 266 (2015): 38–41, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0257897215001309. [Google Scholar]
- 87. Xue W., Tao S., Liu X., Zheng X., and Ding C., “In Vivo Evaluation of Plasma Sprayed Hydroxyapatite Coatings Having Different Crystallinity,” Biomaterials 25, no. 3 (2004): 415–421, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0142961203005453. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 88. Bose S., Ke D., Vu A. A., Bandyopadhyay A., and Goodman S. B., “Thermal Oxide Layer Enhances Crystallinity and Mechanical Properties for Plasma‐Sprayed Hydroxyapatite Biomedical Coatings,” ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 12, no. 30 (2020): 33465–33472. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 89. Roy M., Bandyopadhyay A., and Bose S., “Induction Plasma Sprayed Nano Hydroxyapatite Coatings on Titanium for Orthopaedic and Dental Implants,” Surface and Coatings Technology 205, no. 8–9 (2011): 2785–2792, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3086534/. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 90. Levingstone T. J., Ardhaoui M., Benyounis K., Looney L., and Stokes J. T., “Plasma Sprayed Hydroxyapatite Coatings: Understanding Process Relationships Using Design of Experiment Analysis,” Surface and Coatings Technology 283 (2015): 29–36, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S025789721530339X. [Google Scholar]
- 91. Habibah T. U., Amlani D. V., and Brizuela M., “Hydroxyapatite Dental Material,” in StatPearls(2025), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK513314/. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 92. Fazan F. and Marquis P. M., “Dissolution Behavior of Plasma‐Sprayed Hydroxyapatite Coatings,” Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine 11, no. 12 (2000): 787–792, https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-0034541595&origin=inward&txGid=eb0025c805f3d6009afada4099e5f9fc. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 93. Sun L., Berndt C. C., Gross K. A., and Kucuk A., “Material Fundamentals and Clinical Performance of Plasma‐Sprayed Hydroxyapatite Coatings: A Review,” Journal of Biomedical Materials Research 58, no. 5 (2001): 570–592, https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-0034801327&origin=inward&txGid=4e3313ded4ffe67a17c04586137b0543. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 94. Nagano M., Nakamura T., Kokubo T., Tanahashi M., and Ogawa M., “Differences of Bone Bonding Ability and Degradation Behaviour In Vivo Between Amorphous Calcium Phosphate and Highly Crystalline Hydroxyapatite Coating,” Biomaterials 17, no. 18 (1996): 1771–1777, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0142961295003576. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 95. Romanos G. E., “Wound Healing in Immediately Loaded Implants,” Periodontology 2000 68, no. 1 (2015): 153–167, 10.1111/prd.12058. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 96. Peramo A. and Marcelo C. L., “Bioengineering the Skin–Implant Interface: The Use of Regenerative Therapies in Implanted Devices,” Annals of Biomedical Engineering 38, no. 6 (2010): 2013–2031, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10439-010-9937-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 97. Oswald S. and Reiche R., “Binding State Information From XPS Depth Profiling: Capabilities and Limits,” Applied Surface Science 179, no. 1–4 (2001): 307–315, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169433201002999?casa_token=ybK3Tc5mEGoAAAAA:GLp9BjTibBx3H1G05QHlw4GZwp9ZZ-RyuiJO7tKLeokyxWbRBLqlkSww74X3IwzbK91YNax8vCk4. [Google Scholar]
- 98. Gilbert J. B., Rubner M. F., and Cohen R. E., “Depth‐Profiling X‐Ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS) Analysis of Interlayer Diffusion in Polyelectrolyte Multilayers,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110, no. 17 (2013): 6651–6656, 10.1073/pnas.1222325110?download=true. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 99. Piegari A. and Masetti E., “Thin Film Thickness Measurement: A Comparison of Various Techniques,” Thin Solid Films 124, no. 3–4 (1985): 249–257, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0040609085902731. [Google Scholar]
- 100. Blum M., Sayed M., Mahmoud E. M., Killinger A., Gadow R., and Naga S. M., “In Vitro Evaluation of Biologically Derived Hydroxyapatite Coatings Manufactured by High Velocity Suspension Spraying,” Journal of Thermal Spray Technology 30, no. 7 (2021): 1891–1904, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11666-021-01265-0. [Google Scholar]
- 101. Wang B., Ji Z., Zimone F. T., Janowski G. M., and Rigsbee J. M., “A Technique for Sputter Coating of Ceramic Reinforcement Particles,” Surface and Coatings Technology 91, no. 1–2 (1997): 64–68. [Google Scholar]
- 102. Repertinger S. K., Campagnaro E., Fuhrman J., El‐Abaseri T., Yuspa S. H., and Hansen L. A., “EGFR Enhances Early Healing After Cutaneous Incisional Wounding,” Journal of Investigative Dermatology 123, no. 5 (2004): 982–989, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022202X1532039X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 103. Eming S. A., Martin P., and Tomic‐Canic M., “Wound Repair and Regeneration: Mechanisms, Signaling, and Translation,” Science Translational Medicine 6, no. 265 (2014): 256sr6, 10.1126/scitranslmed.3009337. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 104. Hamilton L. M., Torres‐Lozano C., Puddicombe S. M., et al., “The Role of the Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor in Sustaining Neutrophil Inflammation in Severe Asthma,” Clinical and Experimental Allergy: Journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology 33, no. 2 (2003): 233–240, 10.1046/j.1365-2222.2003.01593.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 105. Wee P. and Wang Z., “Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Cell Proliferation Signaling Pathways,” Cancers, 9, 52 9, no. 5 (2017): 52, https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/9/5/52/htm. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 106. Peplow P. V. and Chatterjee M. P., “A Review of the Influence of Growth Factors and Cytokines in In Vitro Human Keratinocyte Migration,” Cytokine 62, no. 1 (2013): 1–21, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1043466613000689?casa_token=MLpV8RUbKHMAAAAA:xlOT52gWuolIZnUjwt15LKIM6uXpqalZ2bDQGHb4OSik1etH_HjRz_9Xkh-yu4VMPMww2CrGuP_X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 107. Krawczyk W. S., “A Pattern OF Epidermal Cell Migration During Wound Healing,” Journal of Cell Biology 49, no. 2 (1971): 247–263, 10.1083/jcb.49.2.247. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 108. Cañedo‐Dorantes L. and Cañedo‐Ayala M., “Skin Acute Wound Healing: A Comprehensive Review,” International Journal of Inflammation 2019 (2019): 3706315, 10.1155/2019/3706315. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 109. Liu L. P., Zheng D. X., Xu Z. F., et al., “Transcriptomic and Functional Evidence Show Similarities Between Human Amniotic Epithelial Stem Cells and Keratinocytes,” Cells 11, no. 1 (2022): 70, https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4409/11/1/70/htm. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 110. Bickenbach J. R., Greer J. M., Bundman D. S., Rothnagel J. A., and Roop D. K., “Loricrin Expression Is Coordinated With Other Epidermal Proteins and the Appearance of Lipid Lamellar Granules in Development,” Journal of Investigative Dermatology 104, no. 3 (1995): 405–410, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022202X15420767. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 111. Holt B. M., Betz D. H., Ford T. A., Beck J. P., Bloebaum R. D., and Jeyapalina S., “Pig Dorsum Model for Examining Impaired Wound Healing at the Skin‐Implant Interface of Percutaneous Devices,” Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine 24, no. 9 (2013): 2181–2193, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10856-013-4975-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 112. Olerud J. E., “Models for Diabetic Wound Healing and Healing Into Percutaneous Devices,” Journal of Biomaterials Science, Polymer Edition 19, no. 8 (2008): 1007–1020, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1163/156856208784909426. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 113. Gerritsen M., Lutterman J. A., and Jansen J. A., “Wound Healing Around Bone‐Anchored Percutaneous Devices in Experimental Diabetes Mellitus,” Journal of Biomedical Materials Research 53, no. 6 (2000): 702–709, 10.1002/1097-4636(2000)53:6<702::AID-JBM13>3.0.CO;2-V. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 114. Jansen J. A., Van Der Waerden J. P. C. M., and De Groot K., “Wound‐Healing Phenomena Around Percutaneous Devices Implanted in Rabbits,” Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine 1, no. 4 (1990): 192–197, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00701076. [Google Scholar]
- 115. Grellner W., Vieler S., and Madea B., “Transforming Growth Factors (TGF‐α and TGF‐β1) in the Determination of Vitality and Wound Age: Immunohistochemical Study on Human Skin Wounds,” Forensic Science International 153, no. 2–3 (2005): 174–180, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16139107/. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 116. Konturek P. C., Brzozowski T., Konturek S. J., et al., “Expression of Epidermal Growth Factor and Transforming Growth Factor Alpha During Ulcer Healing. Time Sequence Study,” Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology 32, no. 1 (1997): 6–15, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3109/00365529709025056%3Fcasa_token%3Dtpe6lr1gl6cAAAAA:rv_33EqOuu0GiLwY0GuNxlvegolDo9rUD5mRAUbhQhSpnhcp2WHwHCgld6bS2qBHM0WCRzh-dGzErQ&hl=en&sa=T&oi=ucasa&ct=ucasa&ei=NDI9aMabPObGieoP1sTUqQ8&scisig=AAZF9b-8objLrfDNypB_bm3RZSjn. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 117. Chia C. M., Winston R. M. L., and Handyside A. H., “EGF, TGF‐α and EGFR Expression in Human Preimplantation Embryos,” Development 121, no. 2 (1995): 299–307. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
